To what extent can we use the character of God (or what we assume the character of God to be) as an answer for difficult questions?
If the phraseology of this question seems unclear, let me set it in its context and then provide some other examples of arguments where this answer is undeniably misused.
The Context of the Question
In OTI, we have been discussing the preservation of Scriptures. The argument has been postulated that we appeal to the character of God by saying that the Word must be preserved, because God would not withold anything from us that we need to live and walk with Him. I would agree with this, but only on the basis of what the text actually says about application of God's character. Namely, II Peter 1:3 "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,"
The way I would interpret this is that God has actually said in His Word that He has supplied us with everything we need to be godly, from which you can infer that He has not witheld anything that we need to be godly. Thus, if we need Scripture to be godly (which Scripture says) then everything we need to be godly must be preserved.
Let me point out that I am not arguing this way, "since God is loving, He must preserve Scripture." Rather, I am saying, "Since God said He gave us what we need, He must preserve what we need."
Some Wrong Uses of the Argument from the Character of God
- God is loving, so He would not allow people to go to hell.
- God is loving, so He would not allow 9/11.
- God is loving, so He would not allow the holocaust.
- God would not assign a sinful nature to human beings without them having the opportunity to choose sin for themselves.
- God would not choose some to eternal life and leave others to eternal punishment.
Please respond with your comments and insights. What regulates when we can and cannot say "God's character is ____ so he wouldn't _____ " (you fill in the blanks)?
9 comments:
This quote comes from another conversation, but it appears to be relevant to this blog entry.
The argument is that because God is loving and merciful how could he hold us accountable for His Word without preserving it for us.
My thoughts after reading this objection are these. Romans 1 appears to be highly relevant to the question. They are held accountable because they have a knowledge of "his eternal power and divine nature" (ESV Rom 1:20), and this is clearly seen from creation (general revelation: the more theological term). The assumption that "knowledge" is needed for accountability is found in the text, but the assumption that "special revelation" is needed for accountability is not found in the text. Yes, God is loving a merciful, but this in no way necessitates special revelation when the text says that general revelation is all that is needed for accountability. It is loving and merciful for God to give general revelation. Therefore, it would appear to be an unwarranted leap to assume God's love and mercy necessitates special revelation.
from,
Caleb
hey Rob; regarding the doctrine of preservation, it is the necessary corollary of the doctrine of inspiration (contra those like Dan Wallace who see preservation as an example of God's goodness and mercy). I believe you are asking if God's attributes be used to isolate and answer certain theological problems (please correct if I am misunderstanding you). God, in inspiration, spoke his very words into the autograph. Preservation is necessary, for it is the purpose of inspiration (i.e. why would God inspire something if it is not to be preserved?). His attributes define each other and make God what His attributes are. God can act both justly and lovingly without contradiction. I guess I would say that "God's character (attributes) is what He is, therefore, He cannot/will not contradict them." The regulator then is the whole nature of God: He is what His attributes are. He is self-defining. To pit one of His attributes against another is not legitimate. Therefore, every time God acts in justice, He is also acting love (His attributes define each other) and visa versa. I guess I would sum this up by understanding His Word to be preserved because it is inspired. I would agree with you that since Man has both God's special and natural revelation, he is accoutable. I feel as though I am rambling, so I look forward to more of your discussion.
Rob,
I think you made some interesting points in your post. Regarding the use of God's attributes in theology, I think that, as anything else, it can be used legitimately and illegitimately. I think much of it has to do with to what degree one attaches ethics to God's nature.
For instance, for those of us who tie their sense of ethics to God's nature, we argue that lying is fundamentally opposed to God's character and therefore anything which proceeds from God must be true. Consequently the Bible, which comes from God is innerrant. On the other hand, arguments from God's character often rule out the possibility of election/reprobation defacto.
Those who tend not to tie ethics as closely to God's nature obviously use this argument less since a command God gives does not necessarily reflect God's nature, but may in fact just be a divine prerogative (I think Feinberg calls this consequentialism).
Like Peter, and yourself, I would want to argue for the posibility of preservation on other grounds than God's character. Unlike Peter, I think I would be less inclined to consider preservation the necessary corollary to inspiration (this probably reflects a difference between the way Peter and I look at inspiration -- I believe he is seeing it as a process unique to Scripture alone, whereas I would not limit inspiration to the graphe alone, but would consider it to be a process which is involved in all of God's revelation).
In any case, I think your question here is a valid one. Arguments from God's character often forced bear too much weight in our theology.
I like the line of thought going on here. The anwer I would postulate to my own question is that we are able to use God's character as an answer to difficult questions only when God Himself has specifically applied His character in the way we want to apply it.
For instance, in the example you gave Tim, God has said that His holiness conflicts with lying. He is truth. Thus we can apply this by saying that it is wrong to lie, God does not lie, and there are no lies in him.
I would carry this even slightly further. I would argue for preservation by saying that God loves us, AND He SAID He has given us everything we need for life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3), thus He has not witheld anything we need. Here we have an attribute (love) and an application of it that God has said is legitimate. (Sorry Peter, I side with Dan Wallace on preservation. I don't think it is a necessary corollary to inpiration - I am still studying, but I don't think this view answers passages such as I Sam 13:1).
We err when we assume that our experience of human attributes and actions dictate what God can and cannot do. We may have an idea of what a certain attribute may or may not mean, but when our experience of God's actions does not mesh with this idea, we struggle.
hey rob, I don't have internet at home, so I've had to go to work to check out personal stuff. I plan to respond again on this post: hopefully tomorrow. I have to go pick up a friend at the airport, so I'll comment tomorrow.
PPA
Hey Rob,
I think I understand what you are getting at as far as applying God’s attributes to theology and practice. I also appreciated Tim’s example of how an illegitimate use of applying His attributes can lead to incorrect theology.
Tim, I concur that we probably understand inspiration and preservation a bit differently. We should definitely blog more on this!
Rob, I am not sure if arguing for preservation based on an attribute of God is a strong case. You have argued that God’s love is what has motivated Him to preserve the Scriptures. This passage (to my knowledge) has never been used to argue for the preservation of Scripture, but rather the sufficiency of Scripture.
Tim, I was hoping you might be willing to expound more on your view of inspiration and preservation. If you are not willing to limit inspiration to the graphe alone, what else are you tying it to? What is this “process which is involved in all of God’s revelation”?
Rob, as far as the issue of I Sam 13:1 how is it that my view does not explain this problem? A piece of the text is missing: it is foolish to argue for perfect preservation seeing as how no autograph is extant. Inspiration is a miracle: preservation is a providential act of God. Preservation has taken place in the totality of the extant copies that we possess. I would also argue that there are no Scriptures that promise preservation. Preservation logically flows from Inspiration: the purpose of inspiration was to produce graphe (II Tim 3:16) a truth deposit in written form. Preservation is thus the corollary for what purpose is there for inspiring a graphe if it is not to be preserved?
To sum things up, I am strongly convinced that the MSS we have accurately reflect the autographs though the wording may vary. God’s purposes are served in this. I am also strongly convinced that Scripture does not directly teach anything about the preservation of itself. The way that we understand preservation is by correctly understanding inspiration (a truth deposit in written form, i.e. the graphe).
PPA
Peter,
As I understand it, when 2 Tim 3:16 says that graphe is "God-breathed," I understand this to be a claim to authority . . . that is, the graphe is authoritative and is able to make demands on my life because it comes from God.
Now, I think there are several things that would argue in favor of not limiting this term to the graphe alone, but allow me to mention only three.
First, while 2 Tim 3:16 only mentions the graphe, it does not limit the adjective theopneustos only to the graphe. Thus, I think we may be importing a bit too much into the text to understand this term as a technical term for a process which produces Scripture, or as a technical term which exclusively defines scripture.
Second, if theopneustos is simply another way of saying "comes from God and is authoritative," then this logically applies to all revelation since revelation is intrinsically from God and authoritative.
Finally, 2 Peter 1:19-21, the parallel passage that we often use to argue for the nature of the process of inscripturation (and many concomitantly argue that this is the process of inspiration) speaks not only of inscripturation but also of spoken prophesy, and so should not be understood narrowly as a description of the process of writing graphe, but should be understood more broadly to encompass the giving of revelation in general.
As for 1 Sam. 13:1, I would hate to speak for Rob, but I think his point is, to quote you, "a piece of the text is missing." If pieces of the text can go missing, then why argue for preservation as a theological necessity? Why not simply say that what God has providentially preserved, we have got, and leave it at that. Why must we make it a theological corrolary to inspiration. Simply because God breathed something out, does this then bind God to transmit it to all of the saints subsequent? Of course, this comports nicely with my view of inspiration, since God has given much revelation which has not been preserved for the church.
Grace and Peace.
Tim, thanks for that last paragraph. That is exactly my argument.
Although I am still hashing this one out, I think I cannot limit inspiration to what is written alone as you do not.
Peter, I am not arguing for preservation on the basis of an attribute of God. I am saying that we should NOT do that; that such an argument is an illegitimate use of God's attributes. To be perfectly honest, I feel that arguing for preservation by saying that it is the neccessary corollary of inspiration is just such an illigetimate use of God's attributes (ie We assume that God has the attribute of being logical, thus He would not have inspired something that He did not intend to preserve - but, as you pointed out, Scripture no where promises preservation).
I agree with you exactly that Scripture does not promise preservation. That is why I think the only argument based solely on Scripture for a form of preservation is the one I am using from 2 Peter 1:3 - God has said He has given us what we need. Thus He must preserve as much as we need - if that makes sense. Something that we didn't need that was inspired was not preserved in the Samuel passage.
I had to type this fast bc I'm off to work (good old Household). Please rip me apart. appreciate the interaction and hope all is going well up there at DBTS. Say hi to Kit.
That's a great story. Waiting for more. java roulette Noice reduction headphone
Post a Comment